| Title |
The effect of Chlorella pyrenoidosa supplementation on immune responses to 2 days of intensified training
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Nutrition, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00394-017-1525-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corinna Chidley, Glen Davison |
| Abstract |
Periods of intensified training are associated with immune disturbances, The aim was to investigate the effects of supplementation with Chlorella pyrenoidosa (Chlorella) on secretory IgA (sIgA) responses to 2 days intensified training. Twenty-six subjects (age 29.1 ± 8.7 years; VO2max 53.7 ± 11.7 ml kg min(-1)) provided resting saliva samples for determination of sIgA, at baseline (week-0) and following 4, 5, and 6 weeks (weeks-4, -5, -6) of daily supplementation with 6 g/day Chlorella (n = 13) or placebo (PLA, n = 13). During week-4 a 2-day intensified training period was undertaken [morning and afternoon sessions each day, respectively: VO2max test; high-intensity interval training (HIIT, 3 × 30 s Wingate sprints); 90 min at ~60% VO2max; 3 × 30 s HIIT]. Chlorella increased resting sIgA secretion rate (trial × time, P = 0.016: no change with PLA but increases with Chlorella at week-4, week-5 and week-6, P = 0.020, <0.001, and 0.016). PLA vs Chlorella: week-0 = 54 ± 33 vs 57 ± 37 µg/min; week-4 = 54 ± 35 vs 83 ± 57 µg/min; week-5 = 63 ± 46 vs 98 ± 47 µg/min; week-6 = 58 ± 35 vs 85 ± 59 µg/min. Minimal acute changes in sIgA were seen in response to individual exercise bouts, but it was higher at some times in the Chlorella group (for bouts 2 and 3). Supplementation with Chlorella has beneficial effects on resting sIgA, which might be beneficial during periods of intensified training. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 38% |
| India | 3 | 14% |
| United States | 3 | 14% |
| Australia | 2 | 10% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Norway | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 43% |
| Scientists | 8 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 54 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 24 | 44% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 18 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2022.
All research outputs
#766,567
of 23,983,367 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nutrition
#210
of 2,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,885
of 321,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nutrition
#8
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,983,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.